Narrator: he did not, in fact, know what the hell he was doing.
I mean, I'm not 100% opposed to some of the things he claims he's trying to accomplish. But I'm not what you'd call an expert on the topic, and I might have some bad ideas about how the economy works. But even if I'm not barking up the wrong tree, the things he's doing are not how you accomplish the things he says he wants to accomplish.
Why do we keep electing stupid old men to office?
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
If I'm gonna be shit on for being unethical no matter what I do, (because that is no option to not consume under capitalism for most of us) I might as well be unethical in a way that brings me a little happiness.
This is also a lovely example of why it can be risky to damn with too broad a brush.
No, I know. Like I said, it's not going to be pleasant.
It's already not pleasant, but it's going to not be, too.
So the people upset about the wrongdoing can be punished, but the people who wrongdid are not able to be punished?
Fascinating.
But happy enough to accept the work.
Can you imagine needing to pay a licensing fee in order to use the alphabet? Or your telling of Jack up the Beanstalk being subject to copyright?
And yet Trump lives. I guess that proves the theory wrong.
I've never been so disappointed to have a conspiracy disproved.
Hang on, I'm pretty sure that refusing to buy American warplanes is illegal. Unfair, at the very least. Some might call it cheating.
/s because some people's children.
If I wanted to be noticed, I'd go outside. The reason I liked reddit, more than any other social media, was because my identity was practically irrelevant. Only my posts mattered.
I'm pretty sure that the main reason Google funds Mozilla is to be able to avoid claims of monopoly on browsers. I don't think we can have it both ways.
If only someone had warned people that mass surveillance would be used for purposes that most voters are opposed to.
Most laws of the limits of surveillance are based on the understanding that it requires time, effort, and expenditure of limited resources to observe someone. We don't require a warrant for publicly available information, like a cop following you around, and writing down where I go all day, because we understand that no police department is going to spend an officers time like that for no reason. It's a self-limiting decision. Similarly, the records of such observation would be limited in scope to the period of time that I have an officer assigned to me. They can't decide today that they want to have been observing me last week.
But with cameras and data storage, booth of those limits are removed. It costs nothing to observe and record where I go all day. Further, they can decide today that they want to have observed me last week, and just pull the data out of the archives.
With this in mind, the general understanding of "publicly available information" needs to be reconsidered, and the laws about what the government is allowed to collect and store about me needs to be updated.
And we want it to be the way we want it to be, and we are the ones who put money in your pocket.